Table 3 Implementation data for each component of the COME-ON intervention
1. Blended training | |
 Participation rate in the blended training*, % (n) | 71% (268/378) |
 Participation rate in the blended training†per profession, % (n) | |
  Coordinating physicians | 96% (23/24) |
  General practitioners | 47% (90/192) |
  Pharmacists | 87% (41/47) |
  Nurses | 99% (114/115) |
 Participation rate in the e-learning course, % (n) | 44% (166/378) |
 Participation rate in the interdisciplinary workshops, % (n) | 61% (232/378) |
 Participation rate in both the e-learning course and the interdisciplinary workshops†, % (n) | 34% (130/378) |
 Number of participating HCPs per NH | |
  Median   Min–max | 10 4–36 |
2. Local interdisciplinary meetings | |
 Number of LIMs, n | 46 |
 Proportion of NHs that organized two LIMs, % (n) | 92% (22/24) |
 Number of HCPs per LIM per NH | |
  Median   Min–max | 12 6–28 |
 Participation rate per profession, % | |
  Coordinating physicians   General practitioners   Pharmacists   Nurses | 100% 57% 61% 77% |
 Proportion of LIMs with all 3 professions represented, % (n) | 83% (38/46)‡ |
 Proportion of LIMs to which an expert was invited, % (n) | 15% (7/46) |
3. Interdisciplinary case conferences | |
 Number of ICCs per NHR | |
  Median   Min–max | 3 1–4 |
 Proportion of NHRs with no ICC, % (n) | 15% (123/804)§ |
 Proportion of NHRs with at least 3 ICCs, % (n) | 50% (403/804) |
 Proportion of NHRs with at least 3 ICCs among NHRs who completed the study, % (n) | 70% (391/557) |
 Proportion of ICCs with all 3 HCPs present, % (n) | 90% (1506/1675) |
 Time for preparation, median (min–max) | |
  General practitioners    Missing data   Pharmacists    Missing data   Nurses    Missing data | 10 (2–15) 62% (978/1580) 15 (3–100) 45% (690/1537) 15 (3–200) 73% (1160/1597) |